Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

General discussion, builds/restorations, etc...

Moderators: scr8p, klavy69

User avatar
duckhead
Approved Member
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:41 pm
Location: Minooka, IL
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by duckhead »

During the latest analysis of the early Edinger kit I was intrigued and a bit baffled by three holes on the chassis that were countersunk after the anodizing process.

I had thought either it was done by the previous owner or was done by a worker during manufacturing, but in error. The holes are machined perfectly and are the exact size of the anodized holes so at the very least whoever did it used a machine, probably a drill press.

I am in possession of four other 'no stamp' early Edinger cars and upon comparing them all I believe the chassis in question was drilled at the factory and is unique. I also believe we now have an undeniable distinguishing data point for early 'no stamp' Edinger cars as even early 'A' stamp cars do not possess these holes (verified by six early 'A' stamp cars on hand).

I encourage everyone who has a 'no stamp' early Edinger car to acknowledge and post a picture verifying this data point for possible inclusion into the '25 YEARS OF RC10' sticky thread.

Example #1: Unique 'error' chassis
Edinger-No-Stamp-Chassis-Bottom-12.JPG
Edinger-No-Stamp-Chassis-Bottom-14.JPG

Example #2:
IMG_7415.JPG

Example #3:
IMG_7414.JPG

Example #4:
IMG_7413.JPG

Example #5:
IMG_7412.JPG

User avatar
Phin
Approved Member
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:17 pm
Location: NY²
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by Phin »

My guess is someone at AE missed countersinking the forward holes before sending the chassis off to anodizing...and then the error was probably caught when it got back and the holes got countersunk then.

User avatar
RC10resto
Super Member
Posts: 2914
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:26 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Has thanked: 999 times
Been thanked: 396 times

Re: Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by RC10resto »

Interesting :wink:
Attachments
DSCN1714.JPG
DSCN1715.JPG

User avatar
Asso_man!
Approved Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:49 am
Location: EU
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by Asso_man! »

Here are two chassis that have an A stamp. I bought these as complete rollers with early Edinger specs. Interestingly enough one has the extra 3 countersunk and anodised holes but the other doesn't. I guess it already ruins your theory? :mrgreen: I have other early chassis but they’re not as accessible. Will update as I dig them out.
Attachments
E6B10260-D43F-4A28-99D3-8D994359A2DB.jpeg
C4145FD8-A0D0-4E36-9672-9EB2F69FB271.jpeg
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
Come and visit the stable

User avatar
jwscab
Super Member
Posts: 6479
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:42 am
Location: Chalfont, PA
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 434 times

Re: Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by jwscab »

my guess is that they made a running change and switched over, possibly with that one chassis or a small number of ones already anodized, and just added the extra countersinks before they left the factory. Ones in production that were still being machined got the update prior to anodizing. So that lends itself to being an earlier unit, especially with the aluminum shock spacers, I think that has only ever been documented one other time.....

as for the 'A' vs no 'A', I really think that was an afterthought, and some got it, and some didn't.

User avatar
RC10resto
Super Member
Posts: 2914
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:26 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Has thanked: 999 times
Been thanked: 396 times

Re: Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by RC10resto »

jwscab wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:07 amas for the 'A' vs no 'A', I really think that was an afterthought, and some got it, and some didn't.
Have to disagree here Joe.
Early chassis' had a slight design flaw that was fixed. The updated chassis' were differentiated with the "A" stamp.

User avatar
jwscab
Super Member
Posts: 6479
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:42 am
Location: Chalfont, PA
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 434 times

Re: Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by jwscab »

Hmm I guess that may be the case. I just made that suggestion based on the fact that David has an A stamp there with the holes not countersunk. So a no stamp that was countersunk and A stamp that wasn't kind of messes up a proposed timeline.

User avatar
Asso_man!
Approved Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:49 am
Location: EU
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by Asso_man! »

RC10resto wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:27 am
jwscab wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:07 amas for the 'A' vs no 'A', I really think that was an afterthought, and some got it, and some didn't.
Have to disagree here Joe.
Early chassis' had a slight design flaw that was fixed. The updated chassis' were differentiated with the "A" stamp.
What design flaw?
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
Come and visit the stable

User avatar
RC10resto
Super Member
Posts: 2914
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:26 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Has thanked: 999 times
Been thanked: 396 times

Re: Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by RC10resto »

Rear cutout. No Stamp vs. A
Curtis explained this to me several years ago :wink:
Less flex on the "A"
Attachments
DSCN0982.JPG
DSCN0983.JPG
DSCN0986.JPG

User avatar
scr8p
Administrator
Posts: 16482
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: Northampton, PA
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 916 times

Re: Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by scr8p »


User avatar
RC10resto
Super Member
Posts: 2914
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:26 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Has thanked: 999 times
Been thanked: 396 times

Re: Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by RC10resto »

some material...not all

pedro
Approved Member
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Australia
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by pedro »

Hi there

Here is my no stamp and upon looking closer at it I realised now that mine has been drilled on separate occasions the 3 holes that have been countersunk like yours have been done properly but what is hard to see is that the 2 in the centre are much different to the other 3, the 2 in the centre appear to have been done with a hand drill and are quite badly done whereas the others are perfect I never noticed this before just thought they had all been done all at the same time prior to building. Mine was half built when I bought it so I really had no idea?

Cheers

Peter
Attachments
SAM_5742.JPG
SAM_5741.JPG
SAM_5740.JPG

User avatar
duckhead
Approved Member
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:41 pm
Location: Minooka, IL
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by duckhead »

pedro wrote: Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:57 am Hi there

Here is my no stamp and upon looking closer at it I realised now that mine has been drilled on separate occasions the 3 holes that have been countersunk like yours have been done properly but what is hard to see is that the 2 in the centre are much different to the other 3, the 2 in the centre appear to have been done with a hand drill and are quite badly done whereas the others are perfect I never noticed this before just thought they had all been done all at the same time prior to building. Mine was half built when I bought it so I really had no idea?

Cheers

Peter
That is really interesting Peter, thanks!!!

It also looks like you have Good Year front tires and no logos on the rear, just like mine as well.

All of these early cars are so fascinating, uncovering all the obscure details and intricacies.

->Mark

User avatar
duckhead
Approved Member
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:41 pm
Location: Minooka, IL
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by duckhead »

Never knew about the rear cutouts varying in length on the no-stamp, versus A, versus B. Thanks for the info!

User avatar
TOLITS
Approved Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:17 pm
Location: Glendale, CA.
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

Post by TOLITS »

Very interesting indeed that they no longer offer an option of moving the battery trays forward. (red arrow shows the battery tray is near the bend side area of the tub chassis pictured on the box)
Ruf_2a.jpg
So the new standard for the location of the battery trays in late edinger, cadillac, and re-release tub chassis shown below. (two red arrow shows the distance of the battery tray from the bend side area of the tub chassis)
Ruf_3a.jpg
These pictures were taken from Ruffy's box art edinger project. https://www.rc10talk.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=15487&start=45

Also the location of the battery trays in the pre-production RC10.
Original-RC10-No-Body.jpg

Post Reply

Create an account or sign in to join the discussion

You need to be a member in order to post a reply

Create an account

Not a member? register to join our community
Members can start their own topics & subscribe to topics
It’s free and only takes a minute

Register

Sign in

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “RC10 Buggy Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No User AvatarTbot [Bot] and 41 guests